Shri. Satish Namdev Varude vs Zillah Parishad, Satara And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9865 Bom

                                                                                   44. wpst 94465.20.doc

                    Urmila Ingale

                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA
         Digitally signed
         by URMILA
         PRAMOD
         INGALE
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD   Date:
INGALE   2022.09.28
         18:14:48

                                           WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 94465 OF 2020
         +0530




                                    Shri Satish Namdev Varude               ..Petitioner
                                          vs.
                                    Zilla Parishad, Satara and ors.         ..Respondents


                                    Mr. Meelan Topkar, for petitioner.
                                    Mr. Ashok M. Misal, for Respondents No. 1 to 3.


                                                          CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

                                                          DATE        : SEPTEMBER 27, 2022


                                    P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent-Zilla Parishad. The order under

challenge is passed by the Industrial Court below Exhibit U-

2 in a complaint filed of unfair labour practice alleging that

the action on the part of the respondent reducing his pay to

the basic of the original post that he was holding, is illegal

and unreasonable. The petitioner was appointed in 1989 as

a Mechanical Supervisor. Thereafter he was promoted as a

Junior Engineer. The petitioner was promoted in 2004 as a

Sectional Engineer. Sometime in 18/12/2015, the petitioner

44. wpst 94465.20.doc

was arrested by Anti-Corruption Bureau and he was in

custody for two hours. The charge-sheet came to be issued

some time in 2016. The inquiry concluded. The show cause

notice was issued proposing the punishment indicated

hereinbefore of reducing his basic pay in the post of

Mechanical Supervisor. The interim relief prayed for by the

petitioner under section 30(2) of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971

was not granted. The petitioner approached this Court by

filing the present writ petition. On 26/10/2020, this Court

protected the petitioner by granting appropriate interim

relief.

2. The complaint which is of the year 2020 is pending in

the Industrial Court. It is pointed out that in the criminal

prosecution which was launched against the petitioner,

being Special Case (ACB) No. 01 of 2017, the judgment is

delivered on 28/07/2022 by the Special Court at Satara

acquitting him of all the charges levelled. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the acquittal will have a

bearing on the issue which is pending before the Industrial

Court.

44. wpst 94465.20.doc

3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other

hand supported the order passed by the Industrial Court.

In his submission, learned counsel states that after a full-

fledged departmental inquiry, the authority found that the

petitioner has breached the service conditions and therefore

proposed the punishment which cannot be said to be

arbitrary. It is further contended that the acquittal in the

criminal case will have no bearing on the inquiry as the

criminal prosecution and the charges therein was not the

basis for proceeding against the petitioner departmentally.

I have also gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed on

behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 which is taken on

record.

5. I find that the interim protection has been operating

since 26/10/2020. In my opinion, the ends of justice would

be met if the Industrial Court is requested to hear and

decide the complaint itself finally within a period of one year

from the date when the copy of this order is placed on

record for the brief reasons set out hereunder.

6. The criminal case has resulted in acquittal as recently

44. wpst 94465.20.doc

as on 28/07/2022. Whether the said acquittal has bearing

on the complaint of unfair labour practice before the

Industrial Court is a matter that will be decided by the said

Court. I do not wish to make any observations on that

aspect of the matter and the parties are free to make

submissions thereon.

7. Suffice it to observe that it is in respect of the incident

which is the subject matter of the criminal case that

resulted in the disciplinary inquiry and as no prejudice

would be caused to the respondents having regard to the

nature of punishment imposed, this is a fit case where the

interim order operating since long could be continued till

disposal of the complaint.

8. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of.

Suffice it to observe that the interim relief granted by this

Court to continue during the pendency of the complaint

before the Industrial Court in the light of the above

observations. No costs.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)